DOWLING CATHOLIC PARADIGM
2022 — WEST DES MOINES, IA/US
Novice LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
The following is just a few brief ideas, so if you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round when everyone is present. In general, I will vote on the issues you tell me are most important in the round.
I competed in policy debate in the late 90's. After high school I was away from debate for several years, but I have been a coach at Norfolk Senior high for the last 14 years working with PF, LD, and congress. Within the last few years, my primary focus has been PF and congress.
In any style of debate, I find it important for you to weigh the impacts of your arguments for me. Tell me why you are winning the round by analyzing both sides in a side-by-side comparison that shows how you outweigh. Tell me what arguments are most important, why they are most important, and how you have won them. I will vote on the issues you tell me to vote on.
I like the idea that the judge is suppose to be someone who is unfamiliar with debate, so I expect you to not just throw out debate jargon, but explain the issue thoughtfully, logically, and with sound evidence to support your position. As far as plans, counterplans, and kritiks, I don't feel PF is the place for these, and will not weigh them heavily in the round. If you choose to run them anyway and your opponent calls you out for it, they will win. If they don't, then I will look at how they impact the round. Lastly, I do believe that second speaker needs to address both sides of the flow in the rebuttal speech.
I very much like the value/criteria debate. I do not believe your value/criteria has to win the round for you to win if you are able to link into theirs and win there. I don't mind speed if you do it with clear articulation. I also have no problem with plan/counterplan/kritik arguments in LD. Just make sure they link back to both the resolution and the value/criteria debate.
Argumentation is key. I want to hear original claims well supported with cited evidence. I don’t want you to just repeat what other representatives said before you. If you are the authorship/sponsorship speech, make sure to explain how how this legislation could solve a current issue. First neg should tell what is wrong with the legislation AND refute the speech before. All speeches after authorship/sponsorship should refute previous speeches. When one of your arguments have already been used by another, make sure to add something new to it or don’t use it. If you rehash, you will lose speech points. When two speakers are equal in providing well done argumentation, then I look at speaking ability/presentation. It is okay to have prewritten arguments and read them IF you are making adjustments in round and referencing previous speakers. You will loose points for reading a prewritten speech that ignores all other representatives unless you are the author/sponsor. If you choose not to use notes, make sure you know what you are saying. It is not a benefit to not read and sound like you have no idea. It hurts credibility. Finally, to rank well, be present. Ask questions, take notes, participate constantly.
This is your round, I will vote on the issues you tell me are the most valuable.
Do NOT run a paraphrased case in front of me.
AFF or NEG should be topical, the burden is on AFF or NEG to justify why that topicality is not burdened on them if they run something that is not topical.
Arguments must have links and impacts.
I enjoy the speed at 6-9. Make sure to signpost and enunciate tags.
Slow down on the Tag.
The speech must be clear no matter how fast or slow it may be.
I will yell clear twice if your speech is not clear. If you do not adjust it to the point where it is clear and comparable then that is your concern.
You only need to convince me why there should be an affirmation or negation of the resolution.
Make sure to cover both sides in the round while also making each transition audibly between points of argument.
Case turns are underutilized in rounds. That and key impact calc are often game-winner.
Just win the offense.
Condo & Judge Kick is fine
I enjoy LARP.
Default Weigh Pref:
T>Pre Fiat>Post Fiat>Everything else
Order of weighing can be changed in rounds based on arguments made*
If you run Trixs then you should strike me if you suck at it.
University of Iowa | 26'
Valley High School | 22'
Update for Apple Valley: I competed for Valley for around two and a half years before stopping during online debate. I was familiar with most types of arguments, but am certainly a bit rusty and out of the scene. I'm not familiar with what arguments are within the meta, however still willing to vote on anything as long as its explained and warranted.
Here's my paradigm:
email for chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tech > Truth
Willing to vote on just about anything as long as there is a warrant, but please explain your arguments and don't assume I know what you are reading. I will not be voting on anything I don't understand.
As a debater I had the most experience in framework, theory, and tricks. (so do with that what you will)
I will not vote on any argument that is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.
Defaults: can easily be changed.
Drop the Debater
Fairness and Education are voters
ROB is Truth Testing
Defaults are above
Default Layering: 1AR theory, T, 1nc theory
Prefer shell over paragraph theory, however both are fine.
I really enjoy a good theory debate, but bad theory debates can be the worst to watch
Weigh, Weigh, Weigh - this is especially important in resolving messy theory debates
You can read any theory shell, frivolous or not, but I have a lower threshold for responses for friv theory
Don't like disclosure theory - more often than not I am on the defensive end of this. If you feel like you have to read this please provide screenshots, but my threshold for responses are lower than most shells.
I think 1ar theory can be very strategic however it is often underutilized
I think reasonability is also underutilized - consider going for it but please provide a brightline.
Fine for this - don't go for it as often as theory but feel free to read it.
I have gone for Nebel T, T - fwk, T - plural, and T - eliminate.
If you are going for it the 2n - please go for it for the majority of the 2n and win why it comes first.
I read policy style arguments on the neg a lot. Generally one or two policy offs against a policy aff however I generally go for theory or an NC in 2n.
I like built-in turns case args against non-util frameworks and think they're strategic
Probably not your ideal judge for dense Larp v Larp debates
DA's are good - don't know anyone who has an issue with these
CP's are fine but please explain their interactions with the affirmative (why it solves the aff and avoids the DA)
I won't read cards unless I am instructed to
1ar theory should probably be read against CP's - especially cheaty CP's (what those consist of is left up to the debaters)
I love a good trick and am willing to vote on these, but please win Truth Testing.
These debaters can also become very messy so please don't go for every single trick you read. Please layer and weigh to make these debates resolvable.
Willing to vote on any trick I understand, however I might not understand every super complex tricks - ask before the round for clarification.
Clever aprioris or tricks are really fun to watch and will result in good speaks, but stale overused ones can become boring. Still willing to vote for them
A lot of these arguments are ridiculous so just point out why - failing to do so can be devastating.
Going for these arguments poorly will result in lower speaks - but doing so well will result in very high speaks
Please slow down on skep triggers or other blips. Also, please be open in cx I find "what's an apriori?" very annoying.
I go for Phil a lot and enjoy a nuanced Phil debate.
A well-warranted syllogism is really fun to watch, but okay with independent preclusion arguments.
Don't understand how to evaluate the round under epistemic modesty - you should provide a formula for evaluation if you want me to use this. I will default to epistemic confidence.
Ask before the round for familiarity - will most likely be able to follow your framework if it warranted and explained well
I think metaethics are very strategic to filter what frameworks are relevant.
Clever framework hijacks are awesome and underutilized.
NC/AC strats are the best strat and if done well you will receive high speaks
These debates are not my favorite. I don't understand a majority of the literature, but know the basics of some. If you want to ask for familiarity before the round that would probably be smart. If you don't and I have no idea what your reading is, you will probably not be happy with my decision.
Please err on the side of over-explanation.
I feel like a lot of kritiks are just random buzzwords thrown together, specifically high theory. But feel like I can somewhat evaluate identity K's okay.
Would prefer a LBL approach rather than long overviews
I don't think going for the alt is necessary and it oftentimes is more strategic not to. Going for the K as a turn or DA to case is strategic.
I don't really understand how to evaluate many K tricks like floating PIK's but please be open about them in CX
I think reading theory and winning theory first is generally a good strat.
Winning your ROB is generally a must.
"Independent voters are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive." - Conal Thomas Mcginnis
Things like speech times are non negotiable
Compiling a doc is prep, but emailing is not
Make the debate fun for yourself - the ballot is yours I am just here to fill it out.
I'm a philosophy major @ USD. I am judging for Lincoln as a way to learn more about debate.
I have been told I'm a lay judge. I've never judged LD, but I have a few rounds of PF under my belt.
I don't flow but I take rigorous notes during the round. Please do not speak faster than conversational speed.
I don't have any technical argumentation experience, but I do like when things are clearly warranted and explained.
I appreciate confident yet calm delivery. I vote for whoever can defend their case the best but also undermine their opponent's.
Please keep track of your own time.
*LD PARADIGM AT THE BOTTOM*
I am a second-year debater at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He/Him/They/Them/Whatever
This is my first year as an assistant coach at Lincoln North-Star
Email Chain: email@example.com
Debated 4 years of policy at Shawnee Mission West (2017-2021) [Education, Immigration, Arms Sales, Criminal Justice]
UNL NFALD (2021- ???) [Forever Wars, Election Campaigns]
Big Picture: (edited 9/13/22)
Tech ---X----------- Truth
I default to an offense/defense paradigm. Every debate can be condensed to questions of theory (T & FW) and then of implementation (Plan, DA, CP/Perms). Chances are I will evaluate them in that order.
is fine. but slow down for tags and analytics and be conscious of the setting-
IF YOU DON'T SIGNPOST I MAY NOT FLOW IT
IDK what to say here... ask me questions I guess if you have them
More impact calc in the rebuttals == more likely I'm gonna vote for you.
need a net benefit.
I like a good PTX Da with a CP that solves enough of the aff.
I'll default to sufficiency framing until I'm instructed otherwise
I'm probably not gonna kick the CP for you unless I receive that instruction- you generally need to answer the offense on it if you're gonna go for it
cheating cps are fine until you get called out- then give a good reason why you read it.
CP/Perm Theory can be a voter for either side if I'm given strong standards and in-depth impact analysis.
That doesn't mean you should go for (or waste very much time answering) a blippy theory violation or RVI in your last speech
is my favorite. I default to competing interps. Reasonability is best explained as an impact filter to education as opposed to some arbitrary gut-check. I think potential abuse is generally a voter, but, like all things, I can be persuaded otherwise.
ON THE NEG:
Generally speaking you don't need to go for the alt. The framework page is super important and often underutilized-
Links are best framed as linear disads to affirmative methods
I have a working understanding of Puar, D & G, Foucault, dare I say Baudrillard?, and Marx/Cap, so other lit bases will require a bit more explanation.
***Don't use words you don't understand/can't explain to your opponent(s)***
I can usually tell if you're just racing through blocks and would definitely prefer contextual analysis
PLANLESS AFFS: I am probably not the most qualified to judge your K aff although I have read several planless affs before - if you read one there's a chance you'll get a frustrating ballot (especially if I feel that analysis is lacking)
My very favorite rounds are K v K but those rounds get messy fast so proceed with caution.
FW/T vs K aff
Win your method. I don't think Fairness is the best stand-alone impact but it probably functions well as an internal link to nearly every other impact on this flow. A better way to phrase this argument would be "clash is key to sustainable debate" and don't shy away from big impact framing. i.e. under the affs interpretation, debate would collapse.
I'll try to rank speakers based on who had the largest impact on the round and more often than not, who does the best job at framing each argument in the context of my decision.
----------------------------------------------------------HIGH SCHOOL LD---------------------------------------------------------
(updated for Lincoln Southwest)
I'm kinda new at this.
I rarely did Lincoln Douglas in high school so I may not be familiar with many "community norms" right off the bat. When in doubt, read my policy paradigm from above because that's kinda my "default" most rounds.
Generally speaking, I will do as little intervention as possible so please do your best to write my ballot for me.
"You are voting ___ today in order to _________ and __________." A lot of times if I like and agree with this sentence I will use it as part of my RFD.
PHIL: Do what you do best. I would hope that anyone reading a case that creates a moral imperative would explain that imperative and why it outweighs or turns any competing method. Morality framing can be persuasive but it's no excuse for lazy debating. If you are winning your philosophy, it is also important to win how your case accesses that philosophy and why your opponent fails to access it. I have seen too many debates that end up in "Kant is right vs Kant is wrong" which makes my job particularly difficult if neither side explains how the answer to that question should compel me to vote one way or another.
PROGRESSIVE: This is the type of debate I am most familiar with. See policy paradigm for details.
TRAD: Cool. This is the type of LD they did in Kansas so I am slightly more familiar with this structure. I will always evaluate through a lens of offense and defense so win your framing and filter the rest of the arguments through that lens.
My preconceived notions of this particular activity have been highly influenced by Nicholas Wallenburg and Colin Dike so I recommend reading their paradigms if you want a better idea of where I'm coming from.